Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Detailed Action
Office Action is in response to the instant Application 19/203,521 filed on 5/19/2025. Claims 1-18 are pending. This Action is Non-Final
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS), submitted on 5/9/2025, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application or being significantly more.
Regarding claims 1, 7 and 13, the claim recites the limitations “scanning first account …;” “scanning second account …;” and “generating a risk assessment…;” Broadly interpreted, the aforementioned steps are directed to mental processes as said steps could be performed in the human mind. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Said abstract idea and/or judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as the claim does not recite any other active steps that could be considered that the abstract idea is being integrated into a practical application.
However, said operations are not sufficient to consider that the abstract idea is being interpreted into a practical application. Said operations are recited at a high level of generality in gathering/processing/storing information, which are a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
It’s also noted that the claims recite additional limitation/elements (i.e., system, processing circuitry, processor, memory, etc.,). However, said additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computing device performing a generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception or abstract idea using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements/limitations/embodiments that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As mentioned above, although the claims recite additional elements, said elements taken individually or as a combination, do not result in the claim amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea because as the additional elements perform generic computer content distributing functions routinely used in information technology field. As discussed above, the additional elements recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Therefore, the claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claims 2-6, 7-12 and 14-18, claims 2-6, 7-12 and 14-18 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter for the same reasons addressed above as the claims recite an abstract idea and the claims do not positively recite any other operations that could be considered as the abstract idea is being integrated into a practical application or significantly more. It’s noted that claim 2 recites the limitations: “notifying the first user .. ” Said steps are either directed to mental processes and/or in a form of insignificant extra-solution activities; The aforementioned steps are not sufficient to consider that the abstract idea is being integrated into a practical application or significantly more. Therefore, claims 2-6, 7-12 and 14-18 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 7 and 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 and 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,838,309. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because, all limitations in the instant application are anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 11,838,309, without a secondary reference.
Regarding claims 2-6, 8-12 and 14-18; claims 2-6, 8-12 and 14-18 are also rejected under Double Patenting for similar reasons respectively and are dependent on claims 1, 7 and 13 and therefore inherit the rejection from issues of the independent claims.
Claims 1, 7 and 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 7 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,323,456. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because, all limitations in the instant application are anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 12,323,456, without a secondary reference.
Regarding claims 2-6, 8-12 and 14-18; claims 2-6, 8-12 and 14-18 are also rejected under Double Patenting for similar reasons respectively and are dependent on claims 1, 7 and 13 and therefore inherit the rejection from issues of the independent claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The instant Application is allowed for similar reasons as parent Applications 17/404,963, filed 08/17/2021, now U.S. Patent # 11,838,309 and 18/493,945, filed 10/25/2023, now U.S. Patent # 12,323,456. An updated search was conducted on 7/29/2026 and the subject matter is still deemed as Allowable.
Examiner has conducted a thorough search and the closest prior art searched fails to disclose, teach or in combination suggest “an image posted to the first social media account by a first user of the first social media account, at least one followed social media account followed by the first social media account, and a comment from the followed social media account; automatically scanning first account data associated with a first social media account wherein the first account data includes at least:
automatically scanning second account data associated with the followed social media account, wherein the second account data includes at least one of profile metadata and content metadata associated with a second user of the second social media account,” as recited in claim 1 and similarly in claims 7 and 13.
The above limitations are not taught by conventional means in social media monitoring. For example the closest prior art of Burgis (US 2019/0141057) in view of Smith et al. (US 2019/0394231) and Sridharan et al. (US 2020/0065513) teach conventional methods with regards to the monitoring and assessment of social media accounts. None of the searched prior art teach such. As a result, the claims are in condition for Allowance.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODERICK TOLENTINO whose telephone number is (571)272-2661. The examiner can normally be reached Mon- Fri 8am-4pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Luu Pham can be reached on 571-270-5002. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
RODERICK . TOLENTINO
Examiner
Art Unit 2439
/RODERICK TOLENTINO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2439
